Which Side Are We On? NYT, U.S and Cluster Bombs

International efforts to ban cluster bombs fell apart late last week. If you were reading about this in the New York Times, you might have been led to believe that the United States was pushing to get rid of the weapons–instead of the opposite.

GENEVA — Despite last-minute attempts to broker a compromise, American-led efforts to conclude an international treaty restricting use of cluster munitions collapsed on Friday in the face of opposition from countries that said it did not address their humanitarian concerns and would undermine existing international law.

This “American-led effort,” readers were told, “reflected the increasing stigmatization of a weapon recognized as causing unacceptable harm to civilians and seen as having lasting effects on development for decades after conflicts have ended.”

Well, who opposes such efforts? It takes a little while to understand that the other side is taking a much tougher stance to eliminate cluster bombs, as outlined at an Oslo conference in 2008:

But countries and disarmament groups opposing the draft treaty said the humanitarian impact of the proposed protocol would be minimal and would legitimize continued use of other cluster munitions that are recognized to cause unacceptable harm.

These countries, together with the International Committee of the Red Cross and United Nations agencies dealing with development and human rights, also argued that the adoption of a legal instrument that was weaker than the Oslo agreement would set a dangerous precedent.

The Times‘ confused account is in stark contrast to other reporting. This Reuterspiece, for example, does a much better job of explaining things in its lead:

GENEVA (Reuters) — A U.S.-led push to regulate, rather than ban, cluster munitions failed Friday after 50 countries objected, following humanitarian campaigners’ claims that anything less than a outright ban would be an unprecedented reversal of human rights law.

Something tells me the Times story would look a little differently if the United States weren’t on the pro-cluster bomb side of this argument.

Related

Activism Director and and Co-producer of CounterSpinPeter Hart is the activism director at FAIR. He writes for FAIR's magazine Extra! and is also a co-host and producer of FAIR's syndicated radio show CounterSpin. He is the author of The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly (Seven Stories Press, 2003). Hart has been interviewed by a number of media outlets, including NBC Nightly News, Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and the Associated Press. He has also appeared on Showtime and in the movie Outfoxed. Follow Peter on Twitter at @peterfhart.

“ÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦the rest of the world already spends almost as much as we do on weaponsÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬Ãƒâ€šÂ¦” A good point Ron, isn’t it incredible that the rest of the World doesn’t spend as much as one country? The question is who are they buying these weapons from? I’m sure the receipts are around here somewhere.

Well, you can bet your bottom dollar that Brazil is probably selling weapons to Granada and Panama without receipts.

Sure, it’s only two little countries who might have a grievance against previous US invasions. But if the governments we helped install in those countries are ever overthrown by liberal soft-cheese eating commie anarchists, we could be in trouble.

We can’t afford to let the rest of the world outspend us on weapons. They hate us too much.

There is a simple problem with cluster bombes….THEY WORK!In the case of a “real war”against a worthy opponent , as reflected in the cold war with Russia they would be a necessity.They would inhibit the movements of troops and protect defensive positions(mine fields).When a weapon works i say good luck getting rid of it.Chem and bio weapons not withstanding….it seldom happens.

Is this the guns ‘n’ Bibles section? It seems that way, judging from the posts above. The “islamofascist commie atheists” (well, which are they? Islamists or atheists???) can do without American help, especially when it comes in the form of the Deh Bala wedding massacre, or the Mukareeb wedding massacre.
As for places like Grenada or Panama, perhaps if the USA would avoid invading them and massacring civilians, they might not be so irked about the USA. Just a thought.

Pity the poor leaders of the USA and those victimized by its leadership.

These lost souls can see no way forward other than emulation of the failed policies of the USSR; they give us Pravda as our truths, Lysenko for our science, Stakhanov to lead our way into the Great Austerity, and Senate Bill 1867 to declare our citizens to be enemies of the state.

Tom Lehrer quit writing and singing his brilliant lampoons in the mid sixties. He thought, way back then, that the situation was beyond satire.

Like Jonathan Swift, I dabble in satire from time to time. I should know by now that regular political commentary from corporate stooges already sounds like buffoonery, so people often take my absurd remarks seriously.

I don’t blame them. My two previous posts on this article would sound pretty mainstream on sites like National Review or Townhall.

Read about the use of mines in tactical situations.When looked at from a military perspective it makes total sense.When looked at from a humanist perspective ,it is insanity.When looked at from above,down at the nub that used to be your 14 year old leg 5 years after a conflict, it is a lifetime of misery.Aint war grand?

Don’t stop, Ron. I got you right away. Many others who come here do, too. Mike? Ron was kidding. The troll was and is serious. Ron was ribbing the troll–the troll, somewhere in the damp clay of his brain, seems to understand now, just a little tiny bit, that blowing up innocents with old munitions left over from some illegal incursion might be bad. Maybe.

Ron had me going for a little while. Sounds like me sometimes, but US bombies are still killing children in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Russian ones in Afghanistan and Israeli ones in Lebanon and Palestine. Being hi-tech they aren’t terror weapons unless used by the Russians. On a good day 90% of the bombies explode, on a bad day 90% don’t and are left as interesting things for children to play with. Use of indiscriminate weapons is a war crime.

By design about 1/6 of the ordinance does not explode. They are bright yellow and resemble cups. Children are attracted to them and pick them up thereby activating the detonation losing eyes, limbs and even their lives. But the US and several allies don’t care. What are people’s lives in little countries to the mighty USA? Obviously nothing. But how many of their grieving parents vow vengence and join the nearest group to get pay back. Or as the CIA puts it, blow back.

One “good” thing about it is that it feeds the national security wonks with more money for more weapons to keep the behemoth growing ever larger as we as a people grow ever smaller and weaker.

[…] Which Side Are We On? NYT, U.S. and Cluster Bombs International efforts to ban cluster bombs fell apart late last week. If you were reading about this in The New York Times, you might have been led to believe that the United States was pushing to get rid of the weaponsÃƒÆ’Â¢ÃƒÂ¢”Å¡Â¬”Âinstead of the opposite. […]

Ron; I hold my hands up, I missed the irony. Forgive my cluelessness, but I deal with so many people who really do think/speak that way, sometimes the subtlety of one person’s irony is the sledgehammer of another person’s opinion. Nice to know that reasoned debate is still alive and well.